Claims against the government
Justin Paul Dreiling v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Justin Paul Dreiling argues that courts should follow the law’s plain text rather than Supreme Court precedents he considers wrong. His petition challenges how the Federal Circuit treated his claims under the Tucker Act.
- Who it affects
- The denial ends Dreiling's request for Supreme Court review; it does not decide his Tucker Act claims or endorse the Federal Circuit's reasoning.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Dreiling says courts should follow a law's plain text instead of court precedents he believes are wrong, and challenges how the Federal Circuit treated his Tucker Act claims.
Question presented
1. Do individual judges have the Constitutional authority and judicial power to follow the plain language of the law, or is vertical stare decisis absolute regardless of egregious precedents? 2. Did this Court exercise its will in United States v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1 (1889) instead of the plain language of the law — the clear intent of Congress? 3. Do Dreiling’s original claims satisfy the plain language of the Tucker Act, and if so, is he entitled to rely upon that plain language?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- Did the Court decide if the Tucker Act covers Dreiling's claims?
- No. The Court refused review without deciding that question.
- Did the Court explain why it denied review?
- The docket order records the denial but gives no reason.
- Does the denial mean the Court agreed with the Federal Circuit?
- No. Refusing review did not endorse either side.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.